Republicans Spit on the Constitution

[RadioRefugee]

To not have this program is to grant it exclusively to our enemies and fall behind.

A thousand bad ideas start with this corrupted argument.

 

[Old Rocks]

Point.
Now tell me a balancing act that doesn't place us behind our enemies.
Sri Lanka?

I guess I don't have a solution that would both address the problem, and not piss a bunch off people off.

Ok maybe the moonbat howls wouldn't be THAT loud, but our ears would still be ringing.

There are a few problems here.

1. Were looking at it from a micro point of view.
2. We have no idea of the true extent of goings on. Neither do the people voting for it.
3. We do not want to fall behind our enemies in the information age.
4. The threat we face today is much more up close and personal thanks to digital technology and the move away from conventional warfare in the nuclear age.
5. The U.S. Constitution
6. Individual Liberty vs. the measures necessary to defend it.

Thank you. Well reasoned, and shows the paradoxes the modern communications and net put us into. I did not like the surveillance under Bush, I do not like it under Obama. However, no matter who the President is, or what party he belongs to, were we to end the surveilance, and a large successful terrorist attack take place, there would be an immediate hue and cry for the re-instatement of the Patriot Act.

I have no good answers for this conundrum.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

They were obeying the will of the people and those whom they represent.

The American people are responsible for the existence of the surveillance programs, not Congress, the president, or the courts.

 

[Oddball]

I guess I don't have a solution that would both address the problem, and not piss a bunch off people off.

Ok maybe the moonbat howls wouldn't be THAT loud, but our ears would still be ringing.

There are a few problems here.

1. Were looking at it from a micro point of view.
2. We have no idea of the true extent of goings on. Neither do the people voting for it.
3. We do not want to fall behind our enemies in the information age.
4. The threat we face today is much more up close and personal thanks to digital technology and the move away from conventional warfare in the nuclear age.
5. The U.S. Constitution
6. Individual Liberty vs. the measures necessary to defend it.

Thank you. Well reasoned, and shows the paradoxes the modern communications and net put us into. I did not like the surveillance under Bush, I do not like it under Obama. However, no matter who the President is, or what party he belongs to, were we to end the surveilance, and a large successful terrorist attack take place, there would be an immediate hue and cry for the re-instatement of the Patriot Act.

I have no good answers for this conundrum.

Answer #1: Butt out of everyone else's business, bring our troops home and quit giving the assholes so much as the slightest reason to give America any shit.

 

[Oddball]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

They were obeying the will of the people and those whom they represent.

The American people are responsible for the existence of the surveillance programs, not Congress, the president, or the courts.

Your statist apologist hack stupidity truly has no frontiers.

 

[Publius1787]

There are a few problems here.

1. Were looking at it from a micro point of view.
2. We have no idea of the true extent of goings on. Neither do the people voting for it.
3. We do not want to fall behind our enemies in the information age.
4. The threat we face today is much more up close and personal thanks to digital technology and the move away from conventional warfare in the nuclear age.
5. The U.S. Constitution
6. Individual Liberty vs. the measures necessary to defend it.

Thank you. Well reasoned, and shows the paradoxes the modern communications and net put us into. I did not like the surveillance under Bush, I do not like it under Obama. However, no matter who the President is, or what party he belongs to, were we to end the surveilance, and a large successful terrorist attack take place, there would be an immediate hue and cry for the re-instatement of the Patriot Act.

I have no good answers for this conundrum.

Answer #1: Butt out of everyone else's business, bring our troops home and quit giving the assholes so much as the slightest reason to give America any shit.

Are the other geopolitical players, ie our enemies, going to butt out? Are our trade routes safe without our butting in? Who's going to fill the vacuum that you want to open? How will that effect our trade, or perhaps, free trade? Will they use it to hurt us? Will they use illicit and undue influence to harm us physically and economically? Want me to give you some real world scenarios? The obvious answer to all these questions are why libertarian foreign policy is a failure waiting to happen. They claim to advocate for free trade and mutual gain. Neither will happen without us butting in. Why? Because there are many who hate us that are more than happy to butt in our absence. Before asking us to butt out and pretending everything will be peachy keen, first look at butting out from our enemies, both economic and traditional, point of view. Then tell me if butting out would be worth it and why.

 

[Publius1787]

To not have this program is to grant it exclusively to our enemies and fall behind.

A thousand bad ideas start with this corrupted argument.

As compared to what?

 

[Publius1787]

That asshole supported NDAA.

The only choice was Ron Paul.

Love Libertarians, hate their foreign policy. You find me a libertarian who is a geopolitical realist and I will show you the next President of the United States.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was a libertarian with a realist view of geopolitics?

 

[TemplarKormac]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

They were obeying the will of the people and those whom they represent.

The American people are responsible for the existence of the surveillance programs, not Congress, the president, or the courts.

Why is it you call everything nonsense? And when did we ask to be spied on exactly? These idiots are acting outside the will of their constituents. Apparently you missed the part where the FISA court signed off on it. Where Obama said nothing about it, and Congress passed it.

Your post, sir, is hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[Oddball]

Thank you. Well reasoned, and shows the paradoxes the modern communications and net put us into. I did not like the surveillance under Bush, I do not like it under Obama. However, no matter who the President is, or what party he belongs to, were we to end the surveilance, and a large successful terrorist attack take place, there would be an immediate hue and cry for the re-instatement of the Patriot Act.

I have no good answers for this conundrum.

Answer #1: Butt out of everyone else's business, bring our troops home and quit giving the assholes so much as the slightest reason to give America any shit.

Are the other geopolitical players, ie our enemies, going to butt out? Are our trade routes safe without our butting in? Who's going to fill the vacuum that you want to open? How will that effect our trade, or perhaps, free trade? Will they use it to hurt us? Will they use illicit and undue influence to harm us physically and economically? Want me to give you some real world scenarios? The obvious answer to all these questions are why libertarian foreign policy is a failure waiting to happen. They claim to advocate for free trade and mutual gain. Neither will happen without us butting in. Why? Because there are many who hate us that are more than happy to butt in our absence.

I don't know if you got the memo.....But the attempt at Soviet global hegemony was a towering fucking failure!....They created their enemies through their propping up of despotic tyrants and general dictatorial attitudes, just like America has been doing for the last several decades.... The results will not be any better.

Your "who is going to fill the vacuum" game is for Wilsonian progressive do-gooder busybodies, who eventually end up getting their asses kicked and their nations bankrupted.

You neocon twirps are no better internationally than are the liberoidal nannies domestically.

Get over yourself.

 

[Antares]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

All 134 must be primaried out of office -- every one. I cannot imagine a clearer, brighter line than the one that protects citizens from a Tyrannical government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Now is the time

House passes defense spending bill, rejects effort to cut off NSA surveillance program | Fox News

Horse shit kid, this is Bi-Partisan totalitarianism.

 

[Flopper]

134 House Republicans spit on the Constitution and voted with Obama's Police State and NSA Spying.

All 134 must be primaried out of office -- every one. I cannot imagine a clearer, brighter line than the one that protects citizens from a Tyrannical government as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Now is the time

House passes defense spending bill, rejects effort to cut off NSA surveillance program | Fox News

That's cutting off your nose to spite your face. I'm sure Democrats will be happy to help you out.

 

[Oddball]

Love Libertarians, hate their foreign policy. You find me a libertarian who is a geopolitical realist and I will show you the next President of the United States.

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was a libertarian with a realist view of geopolitics?

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive interventionist douchebag, who couldn't mind his own goddamn business.

 

[Publius1787]

Answer #1: Butt out of everyone else's business, bring our troops home and quit giving the assholes so much as the slightest reason to give America any shit.

Are the other geopolitical players, ie our enemies, going to butt out? Are our trade routes safe without our butting in? Who's going to fill the vacuum that you want to open? How will that effect our trade, or perhaps, free trade? Will they use it to hurt us? Will they use illicit and undue influence to harm us physically and economically? Want me to give you some real world scenarios? The obvious answer to all these questions are why libertarian foreign policy is a failure waiting to happen. They claim to advocate for free trade and mutual gain. Neither will happen without us butting in. Why? Because there are many who hate us that are more than happy to butt in our absence.

I don't know if you got the memo.....But the attempt at Soviet global hegemony was a towering fucking failure!....They created their enemies through their propping up of despotic tyrants and general dictatorial attitudes.

Your "who is going to fill the vacuum" game is for Wilsonian progressive do-gooder busybodies, who eventually end up getting their asses kicked and nations bankrupted.

You neocon twirps are no better internationally than are the liberoidal nannies domestically.

Get over yourself.

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly? Or at least reasonably.

 

[Publius1787]

Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

Woodrow Wilson was a libertarian with a realist view of geopolitics?

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive interventionist douchebag, who couldn't mind his own goddamn business.

Was that a no? If so then you concede that you waged an awful overthetop comparison.

 

[Oddball]

Woodrow Wilson was a libertarian with a realist view of geopolitics?

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive interventionist douchebag, who couldn't mind his own goddamn business.

Was that a no? If so then you concede that you waged an awful overthetop comparison.

Absolutely not....Your international policy and Wilson's are one in the same.

 

[Publius1787]

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive interventionist douchebag, who couldn't mind his own goddamn business.

Was that a no? If so then you concede that you waged an awful overthetop comparison.

Absolutely not....Your international policy and Wilson's are one in the same.

So Woodrow Wilson was not a domestic libertarian. Thanks for conceding that. Now who's foreign policy do you approve of?

 

[Oddball]

Are the other geopolitical players, ie our enemies, going to butt out? Are our trade routes safe without our butting in? Who's going to fill the vacuum that you want to open? How will that effect our trade, or perhaps, free trade? Will they use it to hurt us? Will they use illicit and undue influence to harm us physically and economically? Want me to give you some real world scenarios? The obvious answer to all these questions are why libertarian foreign policy is a failure waiting to happen. They claim to advocate for free trade and mutual gain. Neither will happen without us butting in. Why? Because there are many who hate us that are more than happy to butt in our absence.

I don't know if you got the memo.....But the attempt at Soviet global hegemony was a towering fucking failure!....They created their enemies through their propping up of despotic tyrants and general dictatorial attitudes.

Your "who is going to fill the vacuum" game is for Wilsonian progressive do-gooder busybodies, who eventually end up getting their asses kicked and nations bankrupted.

You neocon twirps are no better internationally than are the liberoidal nannies domestically.

Get over yourself.

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly?

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't know if you got the memo.....But the attempt at Soviet global hegemony was a towering fucking failure!....They created their enemies through their propping up of despotic tyrants and general dictatorial attitudes.

Your "who is going to fill the vacuum" game is for Wilsonian progressive do-gooder busybodies, who eventually end up getting their asses kicked and nations bankrupted.

You neocon twirps are no better internationally than are the liberoidal nannies domestically.

Get over yourself.

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly?

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. . http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JS4VZbCWj8

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.
7. The South China Sea is a current post cold war geopolitical fault line.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Will this make us more liked? Which one of us has a better human rights record? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea. A foreign policy should not be waged on "feelings" but the reality on the ground. Though I doubt you have read this far.

 

[Oddball]

How about a little less emotion and a little more analysis? Ok ok ok, here it goes. I apologize if my words made you emotionally butt hurt. Here's a band aid. Can we start over now and talk reasonably or are you going to continue to display that you can't debate the subject on the merits because the temptation to throw a hissy fit is too great to look at anything honestly?

I've analyzed it...America's international military interventionism, nation building and propping up of despotic dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Karzai, the House of Saud, and Mubarak (for starters) is a gigantic failure, which ends up creating the enemies that we have.

The only one here being intellectually dishonest is you.

Ok, what about this senerio. .

1. China is currently claiming every island in the South China Sea
2. This conflicts with the claims 7 other countries.
3. International law stipulates that a country has claim to 50 miles outside land that they own.
4. China has used deadly force to remove Filipino and Vietnamese nationals from islands claimed by their countries.
5. 1/3rd of the worlds trade goes through the South China Sea.
6. We are currently maintaining a heavy naval presence in the South China Sea.

Should we pull our naval presence from SE Asia? Will that help or hurt trade relations, particularly free trade? Will China be on the up & up? Is this congregant with free enterprise and mutual gain? Will we live in a more peaceful world? Will this put us at an advantage or disadvantage? Have you ever asked these questions? For every blind statement you make there are over a thousand major considerations that you are unaware of. Indeed, you are the one holding liberal foreign policy ideology. That is to say, "people will love us if we just leave them alone." BS, much of SE Asia are begging us to sty in the SC Sea.

How did the Iron Curtain and attempts at Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe work out?

The invasion of Poland was the flashpoint that caused the west to go all in on WWII.....How did Poland fare from 1945-1990, after being "liberated"?

WTF makes you so eager to get into a hot war with the Chinese?